timecapsule

I'm fed up with the 7 wire assembly that I have on my car now. It's a terrible design and the wire going to the pilot light gets so much wear and tear that it has snapped off twice in about a year and a half. So now I have just finished designing a method that will reduce that wire movement within the assembly. But I want to be prepared for it too fail eventually. So at a swap meet this summer I bought a new turn signal assembly. It's made by Dominion Auto of Toronto, P/N 70-8033. Probably 60's vintage but by the condition of the ends of the wires, that have about a 1/16" of bare wire showing it tells me that it has never been installed on a car. I did as much research on that unit and it seems like it could also be a 6 volt unit, So I checked the pilot light bulb and its a # 53. So that tells me it's a 12 volt unit I've done considerable searching on the internet for the wiring diagram but I can't find anything. Not only that, but the wire designation is different from the 7 wire that I have now. On that one (7 wire), the blue wire is for the pilot light. On the Dominion one (8 wire), the black wire is for the pilot light. The other wiring designation that is different is that on the 7 wire unit the brown is for rear right. I have done a bench test on the 8 wire unit, and the only wire that I can get the pilot light, and test bulb, and flasher to flash is the brown wire when the lever is set for the left side of the car. So the brown is for left on the 8 wire unit. But that is the only wire that responds when testing it with a bulb. ??? The picture below shows the colours. red. black, blue, orange, white, green, yellow, and black. Except for the orange, all the wires are 18 ga. The orange is 16, or maybe 14 ga. So I ran that one to the L on the flasher. I ran the X terminal on the flasher to the battery with a 20 amp fuse in line. I ran the black wire to the P on the flasher. As I've mentioned in previous posts. I'm as stupid as a stick when it comes to auto electrics. For some reason beyond my "expertise", I'm wondering if all the wires must be connected to bulbs before it completely wakes up the turn signal unit? I'm thinking I have everything configured properly since I get the brown to flash appropriately. I've grounded the turn signal unit to the ground post of the battery and I've also grounded the test light bulb to the negative post of the battery. Yes I could just start disconnecting the wires on the unit that is installed on the car now, and hopefully and eventually sort it out by trial and error. But the days are short now and I want to get the wiring transferred over in a few hours since my shop isn't where I live and I prefer not walking home in the dark, because I got stumped over confusing wiring.

I agree 100%. Back in the 60's with the typical seal beam, ( 1004 was the P/N I think ) I could see just fine. Even without the high beams on. Like I mentioned in my post here. People need to die, in large numbers, before the politicians do anything about it. Of course, at that point they're just playing the sympathy card to get votes. What messed up world we live in these days.

I've come up with a solution that works great. I made up this tool that is a piece of darkest tint plexiglass attached to a UHMW round rod. I simply hold it up between my eyes and my windshield and position it so I'm blocking out the oncoming car. I can see everything around the headlights that I'm blocking out. Also if I'm at a 4 way stop I can block out the car at 90 degrees to me by holding the tool to block out their headlights. When not in use, I rest the tool across my lap and the curve on the bottom of tinted plexiglass rests on the inside of my left elbow. Even when turning corners I can use both hands on the wheel and the tool stays in place. As for the rear view mirror. I have a piece of felt tucked in to the headliner and the other end rolled up behind the mirror. When a car is behind me, I simply flip the felt in front of the mirror. As for a number of comments about people driving with their high beam on. I think it's actually their low beams. That's how insanely bright the new lights are. Then of course the aftermarket companies all want to outdo each other so they in turn come out with even brighter lights. I believe it's only a matter of time before studies are done to confirm that many head on collisions are caused because of the bright lights. But then of course it will take multiple deaths before anything is done about it.

Thanks Paul. I figured it was shaped something like that. I'll improvise and create my own contraption. I'll go see Ian at Acme Safe on Fort St. in Victoria. He's not only a good locksmith, but he's also a vintage car guy, as well as the president of the Island Chrysler chapter. His web page shows a couple similar year, door locks that he has rebuilt. Between the two of us we should be able to come up with something. Thanks again.

That locking mechanism is what I'm missing. I got the lock cylinder out today but it came out in two pieces. But there was no clues as to what creates the handle to lock. Perhaps the lock cylinder wasn't stock and someone just put it in there to fill the hole and make it look like it was functional. It seems to me that the locking mechanism has something to do with that offset rectangular slot going through the handle. However that slot is nowhere near anything. ??? It's inside the escutcheon which isn't even inside the door.

As many of you know, the 1930, and perhaps other years around there, have one locking door. Which is the front passenger door. All the rest lock from the inside by pushing the inside door handle forward. For whatever reason the door mechanism is designed to not be able to do that on the front passenger side. Not sure why that is. Anyways, I don't have a key, so I've taken the assembly apart so I can have it rekeyed. While doing this, I discovered that in order to remove the door handle, one has to pull the handle down slightly. To about the 4:30 ( clock) position and then pull it out along with the square rod. That took about an hour of head scratching to figure that one out. Once I got the handle and square rod out, I still couldn't figure out how by turning the key, it would actually prevent the door handle from moving. I'm thinking there should be something in the rectangular slot that goes through the handle assembly. That should protrude, when the key is turned. That in turn should fit into the squared off sections in the door panel. Which in turn would prevent the handle from moving. But as you can see in the pictures, the rectangular slot is not in the right place. The arrow in one of the pictures shows where it should be. That point was calculated by sliding the depth gauge end of a dial indicator through the door handle escutcheon when it was in place without the handle. Also the tumbler mechanism would have to be quite long so as to go as far as that rectangular opening. I also noticed that that opening is not in the centre of the round portion of the door handle, but it is slightly offset. There must be a reason for that I would think. Not only that but the slot does not line up with the notched out portions on the door. If we think of the door panel notches at 9 and 3 on the clock. The opening on the door handle when on the door would be at about 11 and 5. Which seems to make no sense. From other pictures on line of 1930 Hudson's I think my door handles are stock. I couldn't find an illustration in the parts catalog showing this. Has anyone had one of these apart that might have the answer?

Thanks for the info Paul. I'm still trying to find time to come over and buy those headlight lenses from you. I'll get in touch once I have free time and hopefully we can find a time that works for you too. Cheers Pete

Although the so called service manual doesn't mention the double oil pan, I did find an entire full page write up in Dyke's Encyclopedia, in the preface section (page xxxiii) about it . This makes me wonder if the double oil pan was specific to Hudson 8 cylinder engines of that era?

I'm thinking Hans1 might have the answer to this question. I'm wondering how much oil I should add to the upper oil pan? I would think that if I fill it to the top of the 8 troughs that would be sufficient. Although I could add much more. In the picture I'm adding here I've inserted the letter F to indicate where I'm thinking I should fill to with oil. My reasoning is, there are what looks like deflectors on the right side of the pan, indicted with the letter D. Once the dipper does it's job lubricating the main bearings I'm guessing the splashing of the oil when it hits the deflectors, the oil will deflect back down into the trough.

That's interesting. If I decide to go back for another look, I'll check out to see if it has an X frame. Thanks.

Ok,,, so here's another question that popped into my head. I'm curious how the assembly line took place. Would the boys down under have a bunch of car body parts sent over from USA, and then cut the back half of the body off and weld on a box, and call it a day? What about the chassis and drive train? Would there have been issues with the exhaust or starter in respect to the steering box and column being on the right? The car I saw had too much stuff stacked on it, so I didn't raise the hood. If I get serious about the car I'll go have another look and clear off all the miscellaneous stuff stacked on and around it, raise the hood, and have a more detailed look at it.

Nice stuff. I had read about the lion with the outstretched paw resting on a ball. Now I know what it looks like. Thanks

True enough about the El Camino and Ranchero, but the Ute had a distinctive personality with the 5 window body style. Not to mention that they got the ball rolling decades earlier. Which brings a thought to mind. When Ford ( I think they were the first) came out with the "extend-a-cab", around late 70's I believe it was, you have to wonder if it wasn't influenced by the Oz Ute design. Thanks for that small tag info.

Thanks for that link. I found it interesting that that car has 4.11 rear end gears. I suspect it was made to be used for working the farm with those gears.

I agree 100%

Thanks for that small tag info.

Great info, thanks.

Very cool brochure, thanks.

I'm familiar with Holden. But my understanding on the other Ute's is pretty vague. So the big 3 American auto makers all had Ute's down under, right? Were they basically copycats of the Holden? Were they as well accepted by the Auzzi's as the Holden? Were the American big 3 in Australia, completely separate from the USA companies? I'm curious why the same Ute wasn't introduced in North America?

Below it in the related stuff I noticed the "1935 CHEV UTILITIES BROCHURE 'RARE' GMH AUST" That's really cool and lots of information. Thanks.

Thank you, I'll check it out.

1939_Buick , I'm curious, what was the purpose of the flairboard delivery as opposed to the wellsides delivery?

Great literature, thanks. I tried to blow it up to read it but it got a little blurry. So I couldn't determine it if mentions the engine size. Would it be the 194 c.i. engine?

Thanks for the pictures and the info and variations which seemed to be common.

I'm convinced that it is authentic. The guy is well know for his late 37 and 38 chevy collection and he's a retired hot rod builder. He has a contact in Australia who he had purchased a number of 37 Chevy's from a number of years ago and the Chevy Ute was thrown in on the deal. The question isn't about Authenticity. It's about anyone having "first hand" experience with the Chevy Ute.